TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION, TENNESSEE PREPARED FOR: THE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION, TENNESSEE PREPARED FOR: THE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION Transportation Consultants, LLC 1101 17 TH AVENUE SOUTH NASHVILLE, TN 37212 SEPTEMBER 2015

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION, TENNESSEE PREPARED FOR: THE TOWN OF THOMPSON S STATION PREPARED BY: RPM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, LLC 1101 17 th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 615.370.8410 office 615.370.8455 fax www.rpmtraffic.net

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Need... 1 1.2 Methodology... 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS... 3 2.1 Existing Roadway Network... 3 2.2 Regional and Local Access... 5 2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes... 7 2.4 Existing Traffic Operations... 9 3. IMPACTS AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IN 2020... 14 3.1 Establishing Background Traffic Volumes... 14 3.2 Trip Generation... 16 3.3 Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment... 18 3.4 Projected Traffic Operations in 2020... 20 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 28 STUDY ADDENDUM...41 APPENDICES... 42

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE 4 FIGURE 2. EXISTING LANEAGE...6 FIGURE 3. EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8 FIGURE 4. BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 15 FIGURE 5. ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS TO BE GENERATED BY FUTURE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT...19 FIGURE 6. PROJECTED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 21 FIGURE 7. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: COLUMBIA PIKE AND CRITZ LANE...31 FIGURE 8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: COLUMBIA PIKE AND THOMPSON STATION ROAD...32 FIGURE 9. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: LEWISBURG PIKE AND CRITZ LANE..33 FIGURE 10. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: THOMPSON S STATION ROAD AND BUCKNER LANE 34 FIGURE 11. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: LEWISBURG PIKE AND WESTBOUND STATE ROUTE 840 ON/OFF RAMPS..35 FIGURE 12. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: LEWISBURG PIKE AND EASTBOUND STATE ROUTE 840 ON/OFF RAMPS 36 FIGURE 13. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: LEWISBURG PIKE AND THOMPSON S STATION ROAD 37 FIGURE 14. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: THOMPSON S STATION ROAD AND PANTALL ROAD 38 FIGURE 15. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: CRITZ LANE AND CLAYTON ARNOLD ROAD 39 FIGURE 16. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: CRITZ LANE AND PANTALL ROAD.40

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: EXISTING FEATURES OF STUDY AREA ROADWAYS... 5 TABLE 2: DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS... 9 TABLE 3: DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS... 10 TABLE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE... 11 TABLE 5: SPECIFIC PROJECTS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRAFFIC ESTIMATES... 17 TABLE 6: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS... 22 TABLE 7: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS... 26

1. INTRODUCTION In 2007, the Town of Thompson s Station was experiencing growth in all sectors of the town limits. Multiple large-scale residential and commercial developments had broken ground, others had been approved for construction, and some were in preliminary discussions. The Town s traffic study requirements were in effect, and each planned development was being required to submit a traffic study presenting the impact of their development. However, because of the number and rapid succession of these developments, the Town was concerned that no individual traffic study was able to estimate the cumulative and comprehensive impacts to the primary roadways in the Town of Thompson s Station. At that time, RPM Transportation Consultants, LLC (RPM) was directed to conduct a comprehensive traffic impact study, which provided an analysis of the effects of the ongoing developments in the town as well as recommendations for improvements to mitigate these impacts. Since RPM prepared the Town of Thompson s Station Comprehensive Traffic Impact Study in 2007, commercial and residential development has stalled, development has restarted, a major employer (Mars Petcare) has begun operations, and State Route 840 has been completed, connecting Thompson s Station to I-40 in Dickson. For these reasons, an update to the 2007 traffic impact study has been deemed necessary. 1.1 Study Purpose and Need The analyses and recommendations included in this study are based on future planned development. Some of the planned projects included are far along in the development process and the development plans are finalized. Other projects in the study area are in the preliminary, conceptual phases of the development process, and, thus, generalized traffic generation calculations are necessary. The number of projects included in this study that are in the preliminary, conceptual phases of development, however, has been minimized so that the findings of this study represent the infrastructure needs of a realistic growth forecast. It is also important to note that this study deals with growth impacts over a relatively short, five-year planning horizon. Even though this means less variability in the population forecasts, demographic changes that could impact transportation needs in the Town of Thompson s Station, and that are typically seen over a longer planning horizon, are not reflected in this study or its recommended improvements. A longer-term strategy for roads should be further developed in a local Major Thoroughfare Plan. 1.2 Methodology Initial traffic analyses were completed to determine the current operational characteristics of the network using existing traffic counts and roadway features within the study area. Then, additional sources of future projected traffic were added to the existing counts, and the study area was analyzed to identify deficiencies in the roadway 1 of 41

network. Two sources of travel demand were utilized in estimating the future traffic demand for roadways within the study area, which include the following: 1) Background Traffic This source includes existing and future traffic with origins or destinations outside of the study area. Background traffic also includes cut-through traffic utilizing study area roads to avoid congestion elsewhere. 2) Project-Generated Traffic This source includes new traffic that will be introduced with the completion of various developments in or adjacent to the study area. This study has identified 11 projects that are expected to generate traffic within the study area. The analyses of the projected traffic volumes during the 2020 horizon year provide indication as to which network improvements will be required to maintain efficient traffic operations within the study area in the next five years. The network improvements recommended in this study are in addition to those recommendations already made for each of the 11 developments. 2 of 41

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Roadway Network The study area encompasses approximately one third of the Town of Thompson s Station s city limits. As shown by Figure 1, the study area is bound by Columbia Pike (US 31) to the west, Lewisburg Pike (US 431) to the east, State Route 840 to the north, and Thompson s Station Road to the south. Interstate 65 transverses the study area, but has no access point within it. Generally, land use patterns have remained unchanged since the 2007 traffic study was prepared. However, since 2007 many projects within the study area have been partially completed and occupied, including Bridgemore Village, Fields of Canterbury, Tollgate Farms, and Mars Petcare. 3 of 41

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE 4 of 41

2.2 Regional and Local Access Table 1 presents existing features of the roadway segments included in the study area. The roadways included in the study area are the Town s main corridors, which have remained largely unchanged since the 2007 traffic study was prepared. Most large-scale developments within the study area are accessed on one or more of the roadways presented in Table 1. TABLE 1: EXISTING FEATURES OF STUDY AREA ROADWAYS Road From To Columbia Pike Lewisburg Pike Thompson s Station Road Critz Lane Clayton Arnold Road Pantall Road Northern study limit North of Critz Lane Northern study limit Columbia Pike Columbia Pike Critz Lane Critz Lane North of Critz Lane Southern study limit Southern study limit Lewisburg Pike Lewisburg Pike Thompson s Station Road Thompson s Station Road Width (feet) Number of Lanes Speed Limit (mph) 60 5 45 24 2 45 24 2 55 20-23 2 45 20 2 40 20 2 35 20 2 40 Although roadway improvements within the study area since 2007 have been minor, it should be noted that Critz Lane roadway improvement plans have been prepared. Access to a number of future planned residential and commercial developments are planned to be located on Critz Lane; therefore, Critz Lane is forecasted to become an important corridor within the study area. Critz Lane provides connection between Columbia Pike to the west and Lewisburg Pike to the east, and travels through the center of the Town of Thompson s Station. The roadway improvement plans for Critz Lane include realignment and construction of shoulders. In addition, a number of intersections along Critz Lane are planned to be reconfigured with improved traffic control (traffic signals, roundabouts, etc.) to better accommodate future projected traffic volumes. The existing laneage at the study intersections are presented in Figure 2. 5 of 41

6 of 41

2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes In order to provide data for the traffic impact analysis, manual traffic counts were conducted at the following 14 intersections: Columbia Pike and SR 840 WB off ramp Columbia Pike and SR 840 EB off ramp Columbia Pike and Critz Lane Columbia Pike and Thompson s Station Road Lewisburg Pike and SR 840 WB ramps Lewisburg Pike and SR 840 EB ramps Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane Lewisburg Pike and Harpeth-Peytonsville Road Lewisburg Pike and Thompson s Station Road Thompson s Station Road and Clayton Arnold Road Thompson s Station Road and Buckner Lane Thompson s Station Road and Pantall Road Critz Lane and Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane and Pantall Road Traffic counts for the study intersections were conducted during a typical weekday in April 2015, with one exception. Traffic counts for the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane were conducted in April 2014. Specifically, the traffic counts were conducted from 6:30 8:30 AM and 4:00 6:00 PM while local schools were in session. The existing peak hour turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 3. In addition, tube count data was collected at locations on Thompson s Station Road, Critz Lane, Pantall Road, and Lewisburg Pike to determine road segment Level of Service (LOS) within the study area. A detailed summary of the tube data and the turning movement counts is included in Appendix A. 7 of 41

8 of 41

2.4 Existing Traffic Operations To determine the current operation of the study intersections, capacity analyses were performed for the AM and PM peak hours. The capacity calculations were performed according to the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, TRB 2010. Specifically, the study area was modeled using Vistro 3 capacity analysis software. The capacity analyses result in the determination of an LOS for each study intersection. The LOS is a concept used to describe how well an intersection or roadway operates. LOS A is the best, while LOS F is the worst. Typically, LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable LOS for a signalized intersection in a high-growth suburban area, such as the study area. It is typical for the stop-controlled approach to a major intersection to operate at LOS E or F during peak hours. Table 2 presents the descriptions of LOS for signalized intersections. The descriptions of LOS for unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE 2: DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DESCRIPTION CONTROL DELAY (sec/veh) A Little or no delay < 10.0 B Short traffic delay >10 and < 15 C Average traffic delay >15 and < 25 D Long traffic delay >25 and < 35 E Very long traffic delay >35 and < 50 F Extreme traffic delay > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, TRB 2010 9 of 41

TABLE 3: DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Operations with very low delay. This occurs when A progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Operations with stable flows. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. B More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Operations with stable flow. Occurs with fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The C number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Approaching unstable flow. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer D delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop. Unstable flow. This is considered to be the limit for acceptable delay. These high delays generally E indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Unacceptable delay. This condition often occurs with over saturation or with high V/C ratios. Poor F progression and long cycle lengths may also cause such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, TRB 2010 CONTROL DELAY (sec/veh) < 10 >10 and < 20 >20 and < 35 >35 and < 55 >55 and < 80 >80.0 The results of the capacity analyses for the existing conditions at the study area intersections are presented in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, capacity analyses indicate that all three signalized intersections in the study area (the intersections of Columbia Pike with 840 westbound, 840 eastbound, and Thompson s Station Road) operate at LOS D or better during both AM and PM peak hours. Overall, major thoroughfare routes in the study area operate at acceptable levels of service during peak periods. A number of minor road approaches to major routes experience long delays, which results in a LOS E or F, during one or more peak period. However, as was previously noted, this is typical. Capacity analyses worksheets are included in Appendix B. 10 of 41

INTERSECTION TABLE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE TURNING MOVEMENT AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Average PM Approach Approach Peak Delay Delay Hour (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Southbound B 13.7 B 11.3 Columbia Pike & Westbound Critz Lane F >180 F 154.8 Westbound F >180 E 40.9 Northbound A 8.0 A 9.3 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound 840 WB F 91.8 C 21.2 Eastbound B 11.9 F >180 Northbound B 13.2 C 15.1 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound 840 EB F >180 F 81.4 Eastbound A 9.8 D 28.2 Northbound A 7.7 B 11.0 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound Critz Lane F >180 D 31.6 Eastbound F >180 D 26.0 Southbound B 12.3 A 7.8 Lewisburg Pike & Westbound Harpeth Peytonsville E 44.2 D 33.0 Road Westbound E 37.3 C 24.5 Northbound A 7.7 A 9.4 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound Thompson s Station F >180 C 23.6 Road Eastbound F >180 C 20.4 Note: For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 11 of 41

TABLE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (CONTINUED) INTERSECTION Thompson s Station Road & Pantall Road Thompson s Station Road & Buckner Lane Thompson s Station Road & Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane & Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane & Pantall Road TURNING MOVEMENT Eastbound Southbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Eastbound Southbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Overall Intersection AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) A 7.9 A 8.0 C 17.2 C 21.3 A 9.3 C 18.2 A 7.8 B 11.8 F >180 F >180 F >180 F >180 A 8.5 A 7.5 B 12.4 B 11.9 B 11.0 A 9.0 A 7.4 A 7.8 B 10.4 B 10.3 A 9.7 A 9.4 A 7.5 A 8.3 B 11.3 D 27.2 B 10.1 A 9.7 Columbia Pike & 840 EB A 7.8 A 4.2 Columbia Pike & Overall Thompson s Station Intersection Road D 41.1 C 32.9 Columbia Pike & 840 Overall WB Intersection B 12.6 A 9.7 Note: For signalized intersections, an overall LOS is presented. For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 12 of 41

TABLE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (CONTINUED) INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) Thompson s Station Road Segment A N/A A N/A Critz Lane Road Segment A N/A A N/A Pantall Road Road Segment A N/A B N/A Lewisburg Pike Road Segment E N/A E N/A Note: For roadway segments, an overall LOS is presented. 13 of 41

3. IMPACTS AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IN 2020 3.1 Establishing Background Traffic Volumes In order to account for the traffic growth prior to the completion of the planned projects within the study area, background traffic volumes were established. Historical daily traffic volumes were obtained from TDOT count data, which indicate that the average annual growth rate for the daily traffic on Thompson s Station Road for the five years between 2010 and 2015 was 2% per year, on Columbia Pike was 0% per year, and on Lewisburg Pike south of the study area was -1% per year. The TDOT count data is included in Appendix C. A growth factor was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to account for general background growth for the background conditions for horizon year 2020. A general background growth rate of 2% per year for five years was conservatively applied to the existing traffic volumes in order to account for future traffic growth travelling through the study area. The background traffic volumes for horizon year 2020 are presented in Figure 4. These volumes represent the peak hour traffic that is expected to be on the roadway network in 2020 even if the 11 planned developments are not completed. 14 of 41

15 of 41

3.2 Trip Generation Traffic expected to be generated by the 11 planned developments within the study area was added to the background traffic to create the 2020 projected traffic volumes. These planned projects include the following: The Club at Pleasant Creek, Bridgemore Village Roderick Place, Canterbury Tollgate Farms Newport North Whistle Stop Mars Petcare Downtown Thompson s Station Former Walmart site Commercial Development site adjacent to Lewisburg Pike and State Route 840 A traffic impact study (TIS) has been prepared for each planned residential project included in the projected traffic volumes. The project-generated traffic volumes for each planned residential development were obtained from each project s TIS. Traffic studies have not been prepared for the former Walmart Site, the Commercial Development site adjacent to Lewisburg Pike and State Route 840, the buildout of Downtown Thompson s Station, or the Mars Petcare site. Therefore, a traffic generation process was used to estimate the amount of traffic expected to be generated by these projects based on their current concept/site plans. Trip generation data for daily and peak hour trips were identified from ITE s Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. Trip generation calculations are included in Appendix D. A summary of each project s land use(s) and the expected daily traffic volumes generated by each site are presented in Table 5. The locations of the 11 planned developments are presented in Figure 5. Since these projects are in various stages of development, the trip generation calculations were based on the un-built and unoccupied portions of each development. 16 of 41

TABLE 5: SPECIFIC PROJECTS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRAFFIC ESTIMATES DEVELOPMENT LAND USES (size) NEW TRAFFIC The Club at Pleasant Creek Single-Family (309 d.u.) Multi-Family (94 d.u.) 3,576 daily trips Adams Property (Bridgemore Village) Single-Family (225 d.u.) 2,215 daily trips KMK Acres (Roderick Place) Hood Property (Canterbury) Tollgate Farms Whistle Stop Single-Family (198) Restaurant (32,890 s.f.) Spa (41,999 s.f.) Market (10,600 s.f.) Hotel (60 rooms) Single-Family (306 d.u.) Multi-Family (100 d.u.) Single-Family (324 d.u.) Multi-Family (201 d.u.) Office (30,000 s.f.) Medical Office (46,800 s.f.) Retail (54,000 s.f.) Hotel (50 rooms) Single-Family (278 d.u.) Ind. living facility (65 beds) 7,958 daily trips 3,582 daily trips 10,264 daily trips 2,826 daily trips Newport North Multi-Family (163 d.u.) 984 daily trips Ferrari Property(Mars Petcare) Phase 2 (850 employees) 2,567 daily trips Former Walmart Retail (325,000 s.f.) 8,767 daily trips Commercial Development Retail (500,000 s.f.) 11,599 daily trips Downtown Thompson's Station Single-Family (8 d.u.) Multi-Family (52 d.u.) Office (30,920 s.f.) Retail (279,850 s.f.) Institutional (22,830 s.f.) City Park (1.08 acres) 10,174 daily trips 17 of 41

3.3 Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The trip assignments for the planned residential developments were obtained from each projects TIS. Since the study area of the residential projects traffic studies differs from the study area of this comprehensive TIS, the project-generated traffic volumes for each planned residential project were distributed to the limits of the study area of this report. The trips expected to be generated by the planned commercial developments were distributed to the roadway network based on the proposed accesses, the existing roadway network, and the existing travel patterns developed from the existing peak hour traffic counts. Based on this directional distribution, the project-generated traffic was assigned to the roadway network. The project-generated traffic volumes for each of the 11 planned developments were summed together to obtain the total planned project-generated traffic volumes, which are presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 presents both the estimated daily trips and land uses for each of the 11 planned developments within the study area and the approximate location of the planned projects and their access and egress points to the roadway network. 18 of 41

19 of 41

3.4 Projected Traffic Operations in 2020 The peak hour traffic volumes generated by the planned projects were added to the 2020 background peak hour traffic volumes in order to obtain the total projected 2020 peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 6 presents the total projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes expected at the completion of the 11 planned projects for horizon year 2020. Capacity analyses were performed in order to determine the impacts of the planned developments on the roadways and intersections in the study area. The capacity calculations were performed according to the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, TRB 2010. The results of the capacity analyses for the projected conditions for horizon year 2020 at the study area intersections and roadway segments are presented in Table 6. For the analyses, the intersection configurations were the same as the existing conditions. Capacity analyses worksheets are included in Appendix B. These analyses were used to evaluate the need for roadway and traffic control improvements within this subarea of the Town of Thompson s Station. 20 of 41

21 of 41

TABLE 6: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) Southbound E 35.1 F >180 Columbia Pike & Westbound Critz Lane F >180 F >180 Westbound F >180 F >180 Northbound A 8.3 B 11.0 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound 840 WB F >180 F 66.9 Eastbound C 15.3 F >180 Northbound E 38.0 F 137.9 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound 840 EB F >180 F >180 Eastbound B 11.2 F >180 Northbound A 8.0 B 13.8 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound Critz Lane F >180 F >180 Eastbound F >180 F >180 Southbound B 14.5 A 8.1 Lewisburg Pike & Westbound Harpeth Peytonsville F 117.3 F 142.5 Road Westbound F 102.8 F 126.1 Northbound A 8.3 B 11.8 Lewisburg Pike & Eastbound Thompson s Station F >180 F >180 Eastbound F >180 F >180 Note: For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 22 of 41

TABLE 6: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS (CONTINUED) INTERSECTION Thompson s Station & Pantall Road Thompson s Station & Buckner Lane Thompson s Station & Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane & Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane & Pantall Road TURNING MOVEMENT Eastbound Southbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Eastbound Southbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Overall Intersection AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) A 8.9 A 9.3 E 48.8 F >180 D 30.2 F >180 A 8.3 C 22.8 F >180 F >180 F >180 F >180 A 9.3 A 8.3 C 18.2 E 47.0 B 13.7 B 10.8 A 7.6 A 8.3 B 13.1 B 13.4 B 11.7 B 11.1 A 7.8 A 9.6 C 15.4 F >180 B 13.2 F >180 Columbia Pike & 840 EB C 32.1 F 127.1 Columbia Pike & Overall Thompson s Station Intersection Road F 145.3 F >180 Columbia Pike & 840 Overall WB Intersection C 26.3 F 110.1 Note: For signalized intersections, an overall LOS is presented. For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 23 of 41

TABLE 6: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS (CONTINUED) INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) Thompson s Station Road Segment A N/A B N/A Critz Lane Road Segment A N/A B N/A Pantall Road Road Segment B N/A D N/A Lewisburg Pike Road Segment F N/A F N/A Note: For roadway segments, an overall LOS is presented. Based on the capacity analyses presented, various recommendations were explored in order to improve traffic operations at many key intersections within the study area. These improvements included the following: Widen Columbia Pike to five lanes throughout the study area. Signalize the intersection of Critz Lane and Columbia Pike. Construct a northbound shared through/right turn lane and a southbound through lane on Columbia Pike at Critz Lane. Construct a westbound right turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage at the intersection of Critz Lane and Columbia Pike. Construct a southbound left turn lane with approximately 300 feet of storage at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Critz Lane. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane. Construct a southbound right turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage and a northbound left turn lane with approximately 50 feet of storage at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane. Construct an eastbound right turn lane with approximately 60 feet of storage at the intersection of Critz Lane and Lewisburg Pike. Signalize the intersection of Buckner Lane and Thompson s Station Road. Construct a westbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Buckner Lane. Construct a northbound right turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Buckner Lane and Thompson s Station Road. Widen Lewisburg Pike to four lanes starting at the 840 westbound ramps and extending approximately 1,500 feet south of the 840 eastbound ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the westbound 840 ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the eastbound 840 ramps. 24 of 41

Construct a southbound shared through/right turn lane, a northbound left turn lane with approximately 400 feet of storage, and a northbound through lane at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the eastbound 840 ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Thompson s Station Road. Construct a northbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage and an eastbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Thompson s Station Road. Signalize the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Pantall Road. Construct an eastbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Pantall Road. Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Clayton Arnold Road and Critz Lane. Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Pantall Road and Critz Lane. Coordinate four successive signals on Columbia Pike. Implement coordination on four successive signals on Lewisburg Pike. Coordinate three successive signals on Thompson s Station Road within the study area. Intersection of Columbia Pike and Thompson s Station Road o Option A: The intersection is currently signalized with a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane provided on all approaches. Currently, the intersection operates at LOS D and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, with a 30 to 40 second average delay per vehicle. Therefore, the intersection will operate with acceptable levels of service during peak hours with an average daily volume near 20,000 trips just north of the intersection on Columbia Pike. If no improvements are made to the intersection between now and 2020, the delay during the AM and PM peak periods at the intersection will continue to worsen and will be significantly increased with the buildout of Downtown Thompson s Station. However, keeping the number of lanes as existing will allow the intersection to remain more pedestrian friendly and in keeping with the Town s ideals for its downtown than would widening the intersection. o Option B: If the following improvements to the intersection are implemented, then the risk of increased unacceptable delay at the intersection will be mitigated: Widen Columbia Pike to include one left turn lane with approximately 100 feet of storage, one through lane, and one shared through/right turn lane for both northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection. Widen Thompson s Station Road to include one left turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage and one shared through/right turn lane for the eastbound approach to the intersection. Widen Thompson s Station Road to include one left turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage, one through lane, and one right turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage for the westbound approach to the intersection. 25 of 41

Capacity analyses were also conducted for the study intersections, and Table 7 presents the operations of the intersections that are expected to be most affected by the recommended improvements. As shown in Table 7, the impacts of both the planned developments and the general traffic growth on the existing roadway network will be manageable by providing these recommended improvements. TABLE 7: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION Columbia Pike & Critz Lane Lewisburg Pike & 840 WB Lewisburg Pike & 840 EB Lewisburg Pike & Critz Lane Columbia Pike & 840 EB Columbia Pike & Thompson s Station Road (Option A) Columbia Pike & Thompson s Station Road (Option B) Columbia Pike & 840 WB Lewisburg Pike & Thompson s Station Thompson s Station & Buckner Lane Thompson s Station & Pantall Road Critz Lane & Clayton Arnold Road Critz Lane & Pantall Road TURNING MOVEMENT Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Overall Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approac h Delay (sec/veh) D 48.1 E 58.9 C 24.9 C 33.8 D 38.4 C 30.7 D 51.0 B 13.6 B 16.9 D 39.8 F 141.8 F >180 C 32.2 E 56.9 C 27.5 F 80.0 C 32.4 D 36.4 C 26.2 C 33.4 C 22.6 D 44.8 A 5.4 A 6.7 A 6.7 B 13.5 Note: For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 26 of 41

TABLE 7: PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2020 PROJECTED CONDITIONS WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED) INTERSECTION Lewisburg Pike & Harpeth Peytonsville Road Thompson s Station & Clayton Arnold Road TURNING MOVEMENT Southbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Southbound Southbound AM Peak Hour LEVEL OF SERVICE Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Hour Average Approach Delay (sec/veh) B 14.5 A 8.1 F 117.3 F 142.5 F 102.8 F 126.1 A 9.3 A 8.3 C 18.2 E 47.0 B 13.7 B 10.8 Thompson s Station Road Segment A N/A B N/A Critz Lane Road Segment A N/A B N/A Pantall Road Road Segment B N/A D N/A Lewisburg Pike Road Segment B N/A B N/A Note: For signalized intersections, an overall LOS is presented. For two-way stop controlled intersections, an LOS is presented for each critical turning movement. 27 of 41

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since the previous comprehensive traffic study was prepared in 2007, the Town of Thompson s Station has experienced significant changes in land use and development growth. This study has analyzed the traffic impacts of 11 planned developments within the study area on the roadway network for horizon year 2020. The analyses presented in this study indicate that the impacts of the planned developments and the general traffic growth within the study area on the existing roadway network will be manageable by providing the recommendations below, along with the improvements identified in individual traffic impact studies for the planned developments. Ideally, coordination between the Town of Thompson s Station and private developers would allow construction of these improvements to occur simultaneously with private development. General Safety Two-lane roadways having a total width of 20 feet or less should be improved, particularly if new development will introduce additional traffic on the road. The Town of Thompson s Station s Major Thoroughfare Plan should provide cross-section standards for various roadway classifications that can be referenced as development occurs. The roadway geometry of Thompson s Station Road at its intersection with Clayton Arnold Road should be realigned as a means of addressing safety issues. While multiple realignment configurations exist, some may be more feasible as development occurs, creating opportunities for potential coordination regarding right-of-way or public utilities. Signal Warrants It is common for some turning movements, particularly on unsignalized driveways, to experience poor levels of service due to high delays, despite improvements that may be made to the major street. However, due to low side street volumes, these intersections will not likely meet signal warrants. Therefore, these intersections should be monitored in the future to determine if future improvements are needed. Columbia Pike Widen Columbia Pike to include five travel lanes throughout the study area. Signalize the intersection of Critz Lane and Columbia Pike. Construct a northbound shared through/right turn lane and a southbound through lane at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Critz Lane. Construct a westbound right turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage at the intersection of Critz Lane and Columbia Pike. Construct a southbound left turn lane with approximately 300 feet of storage at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Critz Lane. Coordinate four successive signals along Columbia Pike within the study area. 28 of 41

Thompson s Station Road Signalize the intersection of Buckner Lane and Thompson s Station Road. Construct a westbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Buckner Lane. Construct a northbound right turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Buckner Lane and Thompson s Station Road. Construct an eastbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Lewisburg Pike. Signalize the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Pantall Road. Construct an eastbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Thompson s Station Road and Pantall Road. Coordinate three successive signals on Thompson s Station Road within the study area. Intersection of Columbia Pike and Thompson s Station Road Option A: The intersection is currently signalized with a left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane provided on all approaches. Currently, the intersection operates at LOS D and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, with a 30 to 40 second average delay per vehicle. Therefore, the intersection will operate with acceptable levels of service during peak hours with an average daily volume near 20,000 trips just north of the intersection on Columbia Pike. If no improvements are made to the intersection between now and 2020, the delay during the AM and PM peak periods at the intersection will continue to worsen and will be significantly increased with the buildout of Downtown Thompson s Station. However, keeping the number of lanes as existing will allow the intersection to remain more pedestrian friendly and in keeping with the Town s ideals for its downtown than would widening the intersection. Option B: If the following improvements to the intersection are implemented, then the risk of increased unacceptable delay at the intersection will be mitigated: Widen Columbia Pike to include one left turn lane with approximately 100 feet of storage, one through lane, and one shared through/right turn lane for both northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection. Widen Thompson s Station Road to include one left turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage and one shared through/right turn lane for the eastbound approach to the intersection. Widen Thompson s Station Road to include one left turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage, one through lane, and one right turn lane with approximately 250 feet of storage for the westbound approach to the intersection. 29 of 41

Lewisburg Pike Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane. Construct a southbound right turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage and a northbound left turn lane with approximately 50 feet of storage at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Critz Lane. Construct an eastbound right turn lane with approximately 60 feet of storage at the intersection of Critz Lane and Lewisburg Pike. Widen Lewisburg Pike to include four travel lanes beginning at the 840 westbound ramps extending approximately 1,500 feet south of the 840 eastbound ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the westbound 840 ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the eastbound 840 ramps. Construct a southbound shared through/right turn lane, a northbound left turn with approximately 400 feet of storage, and a northbound through lane at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and the eastbound 840 ramps. Signalize the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Thompson s Station Road. Construct a northbound left turn lane with approximately 150 feet of storage at the intersection of Lewisburg Pike and Thompson s Station Road. Implement coordination on four successive signals on Lewisburg Pike within the study area. Critz Lane Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Clayton Arnold Road and Critz Lane. Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Pantall Road and Critz Lane. The recommended intersection improvements within the study area are shown in Figures 7 16. As previously noted, this traffic study deals with growth impacts over a relatively short, 5-year planning horizon (2015-2020). A longer-term strategy for the roadway network should be further developed in a local Major Thoroughfare Plan. When supplemented with long-term roadway improvements, the short-term recommended improvements included in this study are expected to meet the Town of Thompson s Station growing transportation needs. 30 of 41

31 of 41

32 of 41

33 of 41

34 of 41

35 of 41

36 of 41

37 of 41

38 of 41

39 of 41

40 of 41

STUDY ADDENDUM For information regarding the Intersection of Columbia Pike (SR 6) and Tollgate Boulevard Subsequent to the completion of the Town s Comprehensive Traffic Study Update, RPM was asked to provide additional information regarding the intersection of Columbia Pike and Tollgate Boulevard, located just north of the study area. While the Tollgate Village development was incorporated into the study (to determine what impact this development will have on roads and intersections within the study area), the Tollgate Boulevard intersection was not specifically analyzed. Specifically in question is whether signalization of the Tollgate Boulevard intersection is justified. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) sets forth nine different warrants that have been developed by the traffic engineering profession to facilitate the determination of whether a signal is warranted. These warrants include minimum conditions that normally indicate when a traffic signal is justified at a particular location. The MUTCD states that "traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the signal warrants in the manual are met." The meeting of a warrant does not require installation of a traffic signal. In August 2014, the Tennessee Department of Transportation conducted a signal warrant analysis at the intersection. The traffic counts made on August 13, 2014 confirmed that traffic volumes at the intersection met MUTCD s Warrant 2 for Four Hour Vehicle Volumes. Since that time, it is presumed that traffic has remained steady or grown and therefore installing signalized traffic control at the intersection remains warranted. The raw count and signal warrant analysis data obtained from TDOT are provided in Appendix E. 41 of 41